Hello again. I see on the newegg.com Web site: HDMI to DVI-cables that some of the cables are listed as DVI 2, DVI 3, etc...Look in the second row down from the top and you'll see some examples.

What's the difference? Or is there any?

One more thing I'd like to know on HDMI to DVI cables: Is it true, the more you pay, the better it is? I'm wondering about getting 10' long cables and should I pay more to get better quality cables or can I still get good/great quality with the cheaper ones at 10' long cables?

EDIT: Also, should I be concerned about whether they have ferrites or not?

No they won't. Dual-link is only needed for higher resolutions on a single monitor. If you are going to be running 1920x1200 or less per monitor you are fine with Single link (or HDMI) and dual link won't be utilized at all.

If none of your displays are running *over* 1920x1200, then it doesn't matter which connection method you choose (single-link, dual-link, or any of it). There will be no difference in the picture whatsoever.

That said, DVI is larger and clunkier, and the cables can sometimes be more expensive. Displayport is going to become the standard for PC displays over the next few years, but since this is going to be for watching stocks (and not playing games with G-Sync or high refresh rates), I would just go with the easiest and least expensive route --- most likely HDMI.

Displayport is going to become the standard for PC displays over the next few years,

I'm not sure that the full size DisplayPort connector will ever become the "standard". I think we will likely see mDP take over that role. Even then, future HDMI revisions will give DisplayPort a run for its money.

DisplayPort is becoming the standard mostly because it is royalty-free. HDMI adds more cost. Obviously, you're in the group to whom cost doesn't matter, but for billions of consumer devices, that's a factor.

DisplayPort is becoming the standard mostly because it is royalty-free. HDMI adds more cost. Obviously, you're in the group to whom cost doesn't matter, but for billions of consumer devices, that's a factor.

Just because something is royalty free, it doesn't mean that it will be the "standard". What has been adopted determines more if it becomes a standard or not. H264 vs VP8, MP3 vs OGG, etc, etc. Monitors are likely to have HDMI going forward still so the "cost" factor that HDMI requires a license but DisplayPort doesn't has no effect on the cost other being more expensive to implement as DisplayPort is usually a connection that is put in addition, not "in lieu of". Manufactures accept the minimal cost of licensing a HDMI port because it offers greater compatibility with consumer devices which in turn leads to more sales offsetting any additional cost that HDMI brings with it. A $10000 annual fee, for which a manufacturer is likely to pay for utilizing HDMI in all their products is chump change and an expected expense as they are likely to be needing it on other devices as well. That leaves a 4 cent royalty per device which again is next to negligible in over all production cost. Also keep in mind that the actual cost of the DisplayPort connector are usually more expensive in lot quantities than those of HDMI which are cheap which further reduces the cost difference in implementation.